Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!pacbell.com!ucsd!sdcc6!sdcc10!cs161fhn From: cs161fhn@sdcc10.ucsd.edu (Dennis Lou) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc Subject: Re: Dumbest DOS in the World! Keywords: ms-dos, pc-dos, os Message-ID: <15763@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> Date: 19 Jan 91 18:48:01 GMT References: <278e09fb-2433comp.ibmpc@point.UUCP> Sender: news@sdcc6.ucsd.edu Organization: University of California, San Diego Lines: 92 Nntp-Posting-Host: sdcc10.ucsd.edu In article <279759e7-2433.12comp.ibmpc-1@point.UUCP> akcs.bill@point.UUCP (Bill Wolff) writes: >I have found that the quote "standard" doesn't mean better. Even though >IBM has three times more software than the Commodore 8-bit means truly >little as far as being better. It would take one over 3 years to run >every program now available in an eight hour day. Nobody would ever need >more software than that. Plus there are always new software becoming >available. There are also new hardware being released as well. I can add >16 meg or more to my Commodore 128 right now. This is far cheaper to do >so then to try to get a MS-DOS to 16 meg. It costs me $800 to add 16 meg at $50/1 meg SIMM. How much does it cost you? Many 386 systems are set up to accept up to 16 megs of memory modules so that you don't have to buy extra boards. I assume the C128 requires the use of an expansion board to get that much memory. Furthermore, you have to page that 16meg. The 386 can access it linearly. >I use both MS-DOS and Commodore 128s side by side everyday. I have found >no advantage using MS-DOS over the C128 in many respects. I have found >powerful C128 software counterparts as well. Big pluses on the C128 side >are the following: > >1) A very powerful DOS and user friendly as well. I hate the phrase "user friendly". >2) Functions well as a CLI operating system (CBM-DOS and CS-DOS) as well > as a GUI operating system as in GEOS. I hate GUI's. >3) All the software one would likely to use now available and still more > coming. You could say that for almost any system, thanks to marketing hype. >4) Almost in every case cheaper to purchase, easier to setup, requires > less hardware to do the same thing in MS-DOS, easier to expand, and > the software is 1/10 in many cases to do te same thing in MS-DOS. I hate systems marketed as being easy to set up. >I'll say to those who claim that a C128 isn't as fast as a 386 computer, >I have this to say. I have compared word processing on both computers >using the popular software on each. I have found neither to be truly >greater than the other. I have done the same thing with >telecommunications programs and found Telix is slower than Desterm as far >as getting access to features. I believe Telix is one of the fastest in >the MS-DOS line, in my opinion. Yet, a Commodore 128 programs runs faster >with the same features. Well then, let's compare compile times, sieve times, spreadsheet recalc times, etc. I can't believe you are measuring speed with a word processor! Most of a word processor's time is spent waiting for the user! Perhaps the results of your experiment were skewed due to psychological priming. Same goes with the comparison of the telecommunications programs. I'm afraid you are a victim of information bias. >Those who believe a top standard is better, then I guess MACs, UNIX, and >Cray computers are worthless in your opinions. And those who believe that >big business are using MS-DOS computers are sadly mistaken. I have >researched that and they use mainframe computers, as MS-DOS just can't >access the amount of data or process as fast as they need to. I can't believe people still roam around claiming X is better than Y. Wake up! "X is better suited to my needs than Y" is what you should be saying! It would be really foolish of me to say "My Casio Databank wristwatch is better than the SPARCStation/370 because I compared the response times of both (when there were 40 people all trying to compile LISP code)". It would be wiser for me to say "I prefer using my Casio Databank wristwatch because it does what I want to do better. This reference is out of chronological order, but I put it here because I think it applies... >I use both MS-DOS and Commodore 128s side by side everyday. I have found >no advantage using MS-DOS over the C128 in many respects. I have found I'm glad you use a platform that fits your needs. This is wise. I've seen many people ignore this dictum. Quit claiming your platform is better than everyone else. This is foolish. For me, my 386 fits my needs perfectly, not the C128, not the Apple][, not the A2500, not a SPARCStation (well, if I could afford it, it would), ad infinitum... -- Dennis Lou || "But Yossarian, what if everyone thought that way?" dlou@ucsd.edu || "Then I'd be crazy to think any other way!" [backbone]!ucsd!dlou |+==================================================== dlou@ucsd.BITNET |Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak went to my high school.